Posted on 11/08/2006 10:24:16 AM PST by Keltik
At this link: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Neil Boortz is quoted as saying: "So how did I actually vote when I got that provisional ballot in my hand. Straight Libertarian."
Thank you Neil Boortz. Thanks to you and those who think like you, we now have the Democrats in control of Congress. I hope you and your ilk are very happy.
Free Republic is allegedly a CONSERVATIVE web site. Will you libertarians please go somewhere like Lucianne.com, where you can laugh and smile about how you put the Republicans out of power, and leave Free Republic to the conservatives.
Oh, and one more thing.
Neil Boortz -- GO TO HELL.
Yes. As what they did violated not only the Contract with America, it violated basic conservative small government principles. Either Veto it, purpose his own budget for funding Constitutional functions of government, or held the Congress' collective feet to the fire by shutting down all non-essential government organizations until they saw the error of their ways.
Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't deserve to win, and that is the price we pay for allowing the Reps to lose.
Way to butter us up. Don't you need us?
I mean, we must matter to the elections, since you seem to think we gave this one to the liberals (in spite of so very many of us swallowing our principles and voting Republican).
So if we're that important, wouldn't it be wiser to try to get us on your side?
Well, it turns out I'm a moderate.
I voted GOP, but ALL of my moderate friends emphatically did not.
Food for thought.
one of the prime purposes of government is to enforce G-d's laws and restrain man's evil inclination
Osama?
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. You hurt my widdwe feewings. Now I'll bawl all night long!
I am honored to be your enemy.
What is this with libertarians who don't want to be "dictated to" by the Creator of the Universe always threatening to shoot people? But I suppose being murdered is much easier to bear when sanctioned by "the social contract" than by the King of the Universe!
There are ranked voting systems where you can vote for multiple candidates, so if your first choice doesn't win then your vote goes toward the 2nd choice. I wish we had that type of system here. If we did, then voting for the candidate you really want would make the most sense.
But the REALITY is that we DON'T have that type of system here.
The REALITY is that we have a winner-take-all system here.
The REALITY is that a Democrat or Republican WILL win the vast majority of elections in this country.
The REALITY is that Libertarians only serve to make the Republican party weaker.
The REALITY is that Libertarians result in more Democrats being elected to office.
We can be completely idealistic about this and just say you should always vote for the person you really want. But we are faced with the REALITY of a single vote winner-take-all system, and must choose the best option GIVEN THAT SYSTEM.
Given a car headed straight for you, most people will choose to move either right or left to get out of the way. The Libertarian just stands there and indignantly states "I have the right of way".
I like that idea.
Abortion should be left to the states.
Massachusetts would allow it... and Alabama wouldn't.
Eventually, the birth rate of Massachusetts (and other liberal states) would fall so low that they'd have to import conservatives (as Conservatives actually have children) to fill all the jobs. Then the influx of conservatives would then change the electoral map of Massachusetts, making it a Conservative state.
All in all, not a bad deal.
I apologize, but it wouldn't have ended up like this if you weren't posting such stupidity.
I voted the Constitution party for some my states electoral races.
Mainly because I vote for whatever candidate best matches my political platform.
And some of the Republican candidates didn't match anywhere near as close as the Constitutional candidates.
Good Dead Corpse glad you joined the party.
Hmmm Oberon I am thinking that a more precise interpretation of your above post would be "cut and run"
But you don't get off that easy.
You claimed I didn't know my history, you don't get away with that. 1981 Ronnie Reagan (God Bless his soul) is inaugurated. the Congressional Budget office gives these numbers.
1981 Outlays $678,200,000.00 Total Debt: $798,400,00.00
1985 Outlays $990,400,000.00 Total Debt: $1,507,300,00.00
Reagan's supposedly held Congress's big spending down with his statesmandship. when in fact the budget increased over 45% in 4 years. And the debt went up nearly 89%.
Let us compare that to Bush's first term.
2001 Outlays 1,991,400,000.00 Total Debt: 3,319,600,000.00
2005 Outlays 2,472,200,000.00 Total Debt: 4,592,200,000.00
"W" using his approach held Congress's increase to a little over 24% and the debt increased a little more than 38%.
So Dead and Oberon you both denigrate Bush for not holding spending like Reagan did, well you are correct that he didn't In fact he did a much better job and remember these numbers are not even adjusted for inflation.
Thanks for playing.
Mad Dawgg
P.S. Oberon what was that crack about me not knowing my history?
Isn't that really up to each person and G-d?
And which set of rules are we to live by? Islamic... or Hindu?
Maybe Shinto?
And which set of rules are we to live by? Islamic... or Hindu?
Maybe Shinto?
Wow, what unique, insightful, original objections. Naturally I've never thought of this before (being a dumb rube and all), but say . . . just off the top of my head . . . I suggest you first examine your assumption that all religions are equally subjective and the product of subjective philosophical speculations with no means to test objective truth claims whatsoever? Of course, I'm just a dumb rube and all.
Dogma is, by definition, immune to reason. You either believe or you don't, but you can't test it.
I suppose that you've never thought that the followers of those 'other' religions might think the same way you do...
...and try to enforce their beliefs. (Osama)
Americans tend not to like it when that happens. (WOT)
Why should you be allowed to do the same?
no means to test objective truth claims whatsoever?
Dogma is, by definition, immune to reason. You either believe or you don't, but you can't test it.
You mean like government being the voluntary creation of sovereign individuals who were all born "free and equal," complete with umbilical cords? And "nature" conferring "natural rights?"
Why, of course not! This insight is absolutely unique to atheist libertarians who advocate "eighteenth century" social construct theories as the basis of all human life! Why would a dumb rube who believes in G-d ever notice such a thing? Why, we don't even realize that there are other religions that make the same truth claims! And this in spite of the fact that I had to investigate several religions before I found something absolutely unique. But never mind. Apparently "religion" is be definition ethical philosophy presented as miracle stories, so that "religious truth" is a different kind of "truth" than the ordinary kind!
...and try to enforce their beliefs. (Osama)
I've stopped making remarks about the lack of originality of this observation. Say, Osama breathes oxygen; maybe I should stop?
Americans tend not to like it when that happens. (WOT)
Neither Americans, nor you, nor I, nor anyone else is going to have the final say in the matter.
Why should you be allowed to do the same?
Hey, I'm not doing anything!
Are you unfamiliar with the term?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.